Addressing “Idealism Exploitation” Through Unionization: Causes and Outcomes of Nonprofit Worker Labor Organizing in the U.S.

Abstract

Through in-depth interviews with nonprofit workers and full-time union organizers in the nonprofit sector, this qualitative study examines the causes, outcomes, and workers’ perceptions of the recent nonprofit worker unionization movement. We found that chronic low pay, substandard working conditions, and a concern for compromised services to clients were the impetus for workers’ labor organizing. Interviews revealed that existing unionization efforts yielded significant wins for workers. This shows that nonprofit organizations could figure out resources to reprioritize labor costs even though they face constraints by funders. Unionization also benefited nonprofit management, including favorable work policies applying to managers and reduced staff turnover. Previous literature suggests that the highly gendered and value-based labor dynamic in nonprofits is a barrier to labor organizing. We found that workers are reevaluating this sacrificing, “labor-of-love” logic and aligning workers’ rights with clients’ rights. This has transformed a barrier to a powerful facilitator for labor organizing.

Introduction

Nonprofit human services organizations in the United States are major players in delivering essential public goods and services—especially for the most disadvantaged populations who cannot otherwise afford these services (Cornelius & Corvington, 2012). Ironically, members of the workforce that deliver these services—most of whom are women and people of color—have suffered chronic low pay, high workload, and poor working conditions (Burghardt, 2020; North, 2018; Parrott & Kramer, 2017; Riley & Piereson, 2022; Zhao et al., 2024a). These issues stem partly from nonprofit employers’ financial dependence on funders (e.g., government contracts, foundation grants, and private donations) who often expect unrealistically low overhead and personnel costs (Baines et al., 2014; Gregory & Howard, 2009; Nickson et al., 2008; Parrott & Kramer, 2017; Pynes, 2017). Additionally, as argued by Baines (2010), “the combination of care work and social mission” of nonprofit human services involves the notions of “female selflessness, commitment to the well-being of others, and willingness to work under almost any conditions as long as it is for a higher cause” (p. 481). This creates a highly gendered, value-based labor dynamic that restricts workers’ bargaining power (Baines et al., 2014; Baines & Armstrong, 2019; Folbre et al., 2023; Nickson et al., 2008).

These labor struggles are not unique to the U.S. and are seen in many advanced industrial countries including Scotland, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia (Baines et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2017). This is in part a result of the restructuring of human/social services under government austerity cuts and neoliberal management models such as New Public Management (Baines et al., 2014; Cunningham et al., 2017). In response to neoliberal ideals, workers of these countries turned to unionism (and specifically social unionism) to not only improve wages and working conditions but also have a voice in how decisions get made (Baines, 2010; Baines et al., 2014; Baines & Cunningham, 2020). Although union density in nonprofit human services remains low across these countries (Baines et al., 2014), it is even lower in the U.S.—especially in the private sector (Zhao et al., 2024b). Historically, except for health care, labor unions have not had a significant presence in the U.S. nonprofit sector (Karger & Lonne, 2013; Kurzman, 2013; Pynes, 2017; Riley & Piereson, 2022). Without a collective bargaining agent that can leverage workers’ power, individual employees are left with limited choice but to accept low wages (Parrott, 2022).

The history of U.S. human services providers with unions has vacillated between strong support among radical social workers during the Progressive era through the New Deal, to the anti-union providers during the professionalization of the field during the 1950s, which has largely persisted (with some exceptions) throughout the field's recent history (Cullen, 1980; Reisch, 2009). However, with the surge in high-profile unionization efforts resulting from growing income inequality and workers’ increasing awareness of their labor exploitation (Covert, 2023; Jaffe, 2021), the U.S. nonprofit sector is observing a rise in labor organizing activities (North, 2018; Pynes, 2017; Rendon, 2023; Riley & Piereson, 2022). In recent years, Office and Professional Employees International Union alone has unionized more than 60 nonprofits across the country, and organizations represented by the Nonprofit Professional Employees Union have increased from 12 in 2018 to about 50 in 2023 (Rendon, 2023). While unionization in the U.S. nonprofit sector has accelerated, research on nonprofit unionization in the country remains scant.

Existing research on nonprofit human services and unions are mostly based on other countries including Canada, Australia, and the UK (Baines, 2010; Baines & Cunningham, 2020). The limited, existing research on the U.S. focuses on management's perceptions of unions and suggests an anti-union stance from nonprofit management—managers argue that unions would not help improve worker compensation because, unlike for-profit companies, nonprofit employers do not control the prices (e.g., government contract value; grants) (Capulong, 2006; Peters & Masaoka, 2000; Zhao et al., 2024b). Although conceptual work on the topic of how unions can benefit nonprofit human services workers and their clients exists (Capulong, 2006; Karger & Lonne, 2013; Kashner, 2012; Pynes, 2017; Ross, 2014), a search of the literature found scant empirical research studying the recent nonprofit worker unionization development in the U.S.—especially from the perspective of workers and unions as opposed to management. There have been more practice-oriented reflections on unionization, including a recent editorial in this journal by Zelnick et al. (2022) which examines the motivation of two social workers involved in organizing the nonprofit sector. Additionally, North (2018) details the successful unionization process of a child welfare agency in San Francisco, despite opposition from management. Further empirical research is needed to understand how nonprofit workers experience unionization so we can have a nuanced understanding of what issues motivated the unionization, the outcomes and gains from these collective efforts, and workers’ perceptions of what unions mean to them as employees of mission-driven organizations.

Through in-depth interviews with 19 nonprofit union organizers, including workers of nonprofit service organizations and professional union organizers in New York City (NYC), this study addresses this gap in knowledge by answering the following research questions: What issues currently motivate U.S. nonprofit workers to unionize? What are the outcomes and worker gains from unionization? How do union organizers respond to opposing arguments against nonprofit worker unionization? The nonprofit workers interviewed for the study came from organizations that were unionized within the past 10 years or were in the process of unionizing with no union contract in place yet. Professional union organizers from unions are also included because they work with employees from many nonprofits and can provide valuable insights of the topic to their observation. We chose NYC as the geographic focus because: 1) it houses a large number of nonprofit human services organizations (Parrott & Kramer, 2017); 2) it is a union town with higher union density than the national average and a relatively pro-union political environment (Chaison, 2006; Karger & Lonne, 2013); and 3) many nonprofit human services agencies were unionized in NYC in recent years.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: First, we review the literature on labor unions in nonprofits and the gendered care industry. Next, we present the research method and findings. Then, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this recent trend of nonprofit worker unionization in the United States.

Literature Review

Labor Unions as a Collective Bargaining Institution

The union is one of the major labor market institutions that regulate employer-worker relationships and is the sole institution representing workers’ interests (Borjas, 2016; Chaison, 2006). Involved in every aspect of employment contract negotiations, including wages, benefits, and work schedules, unions are primarily responsible for the improvement in working conditions witnessed in the advanced industrial world. Although the U.S. went through a sharp decline in union membership between the 1960s and 2020 (Borjas, 2016; Kurzman, 2021), unions still represent about 10 percent of workers and have been proven to be effective in improving wages, with unionized workers earning more than their nonunion counterparts (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023; Manzo & Bruno, 2014; Meara et al., 2020). A union wage premium has been observed in many industries and professions including hospital nurses and public-school teachers (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2006; Manzo & Bruno, 2014). The collective bargaining mechanism that comes with unions—including standardized wage rates, pay transparency, and grievance procedures—has been proven to combat pay disparity for equally qualified workers (Gould & McNicholas, 2017). For example, the gender pay gap is smaller among unionized workers than nonunionized workers (Meara et al., 2020; Patrik & Heydeman, 2018).

Triangular Labor Relations: Funder as a Third Party in the Equation

Nonprofit human services workers operate in a unique situation vastly different from businesses where traditional union-employment dynamics exist. First, nonprofit organizations usually do not generate “profits” on their own. Their revenues primarily come from third-party payers, through arrangements in which the government purchases nonprofit services for client populations who cannot afford the services, or through charitable donations from foundations or private donors (Powell & Bromley, 2020). In either case, the funder/payer expects the lowest possible administrative and personnel expenses. Consequently, nonprofit human services organizations serving the most vulnerable clientele often operate under a tight budget without much “profit” available to share with workers (Baines & Armstrong, 2019; Gregory & Howard, 2009; Pallotta, 2008; Parrott & Kramer, 2017). Widespread financial starvation and resource dependence on funders are well documented in this sector. In fact, “we just don’t have the money” and “it is the government that is responsible for the low wages” are common arguments that nonprofit employers use in response to workers’ demand for higher wages (Capulong, 2006; Peters & Masaoka, 2000; Rendon, 2023; Zhao et al., 2024a, 2024b). Employers argue that the third party in the equation—the funders—creates a triangular relationship in which nonprofit management's hands are tied (Capulong, 2006; Zhao et al., 2024b). This is especially true in primarily state-funded service fields—as feminist political economists have observed, the neoliberal state is increasingly a third source of control, setting funding levels and detailed work requirements for nonprofit service providers in many advanced industrial countries (Baines & Armstrong, 2019; Baines & Cunningham, 2013). Studies based on Canada and Australia indicate that, even in highly unionized workplaces, unions are the least powerful institution compared to the state and management (Baines & Armstrong, 2019; Cooper & Ellem, 2008).

Gendered Workforce and Weaker Worker Bargaining Power

Nonprofit human services workers tend to be “mission-driven” and more “ideologically committed to their work” than those in other sectors (Capulong, 2006, p. 388; Rosenberg & Rosenberg, 2006). According to feminist social work scholars, this commitment and sacrificing norm in the care sector has much to do with the female-majority workforce and gendered organizational dynamics (Baines, 2010; Baines et al., 2014; Baines & Armstrong, 2019). In many industrial countries, including the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the UK, “care work is performed mainly by women in paid and unpaid capacities” (Baines et al., 2014, p. 27). For example, in the long-term care industry in Canada, because of austerity policies and underfunding, the state and nonprofit management intentionally take advantage of this feminized tendence to serve and institutionalize the dependence on workers’ unpaid care work to extend capacity (Baines & Armstrong, 2019).

The literature suggests that nonprofit service workers do not perceive unionization as incompatible with their roles (Rosenberg, 2003) and many are pro-union. Their commitment to providing services to their clients, however, may hinder labor organizing and/or union bargaining (Baines & Armstrong, 2019; Capulong, 2006). Human services workers rarely use strikes or collective bargaining strategies because they believe they have a “special obligation” to their clients that precludes them from withdrawing services (Baines & Armstrong, 2019; Fisher, 1987; Karger, 2013; Rosenberg & Rosenberg, 2006). In some cases, nonprofit workers’ allegiance to their clients may prevent them from leaving an unsatisfactory job (Capulong, 2006). Tambor (1979) argued that this “ideology of professionalism” has contributed to the “subordination” of nonprofit service workers’ class interests to the needs of their clients.

Human services workers’ bargaining power is further compromised because of the nature of the care industry (Folbre et al., 2023). Unlike business services where firms can easily quantify the values of their products, it is difficult for providers of care services to show their specific value to consumers. Therefore, care services tend to be publicly provided (Arrow, 2008) and care professions often 1) purposefully select workers who have intrinsic motivation for the work; 2) enforce normative responsibility for others (e.g., social workers bear a ‘duty to care’ and failure in doing so often incur strict sanctions); and 3) require specific skills, licensing, and experience (Folbre et al., 2023). In conjunction, these characteristics limit workers’ cross-industry mobility and thus reduce their bargaining power (Arrow, 2008; Folbre et al., 2023).

Nonprofit Wage Penalty and the Labor Donation Norm

Abundant empirical evidence has substantiated an overall “nonprofit wage penalty” compared to for-profit organizations (as reviewed in Faulk et al., 2013 and Zhao, 2020). Many theories have been developed to explain this phenomenon. First, because nonprofits often operate under an ethos of care and altruism, Preston (1988), Frank (1996), and Rose-Ackerman (1997) proposed that nonprofit workers would accept lower wages if the firm provided (external) social benefits—such as serving the marginalized, disadvantaged populations (e.g., vulnerable children, domestic violence victims, people with disabilities). This formed a labor donation hypothesis arguing that, because of their idealistic goals, nonprofit employees seek less monetary return than for-profit workers. Similarly, the compensating wage differential theory suggests that workers are willing to accept lower pay for jobs with agreeable working conditions such as a cause sharing their values and beliefs (Mas & Pallais, 2016; Smith, 1979). Second, because it is difficult to quantify and monitor the quality of care-work, nonprofit organizations also prefer workers with intrinsic motivation who are ideologically committed to their mission. Therefore, nonprofit employers tend to use lower compensation packages as a mechanism to select mission-driven workers (Benz, 2005; Leete, 2000; Rose-Ackerman, 1997). This forms the intrinsic motivation hypothesis. Third, the “care wage penalty” argument suggests that the lower wages observed in care professions that are often female-overrepresented is a result of the devaluation of women's work and the caring professions (Dayton, 2023; Folbre et al., 2023; Folbre & Smith, 2017; Kashner, 2012). Scholars argue that the lower pay in the nonprofit sector is partly due to the concentration of low-paying female-majority occupations in the nonprofit labor market (Faulk et al., 2013; Preston, 1990).

Lastly, nonprofit organizations’ institutional environment, structure, and ideology further restrict their ability to pay higher wages. Because nonprofits tend to concentrate in industries with high public or altruistic outputs, they rely on private donations and government subsidies (Fischer et al., 2011). Therefore, their operational expenditures are subject to close monitoring by funders and governmental regulators (Carman, 2011; Gregory & Howard, 2009). Entrepreneur and author Dan Pallotta (2008) argues that, when thinking about “nonprofits,” the whole society holds a deprivation-based mentality, a “nonprofit ideology,” which is a set of oppressive rules forced on nonprofit organizations. Some of these expectations include the belief that people who work in the nonprofit world should be more interested in social good than in money and that charities should maintain a low overhead percentage (Pallotta, 2008). Funders embody this ideology and often hold unrealistic expectations for the costs required to run programs (Gregory & Howard, 2009). To compete for grants and donations, nonprofit organizations must show that they can deliver the expected program outcomes with the lowest costs, which further misleads funders’ expectations, creating a “nonprofit starvation cycle” (Gregory & Howard, 2009). As a result, many nonprofit organizations are chronically financially starved and are thus unable to invest in basic organizational infrastructure or pay decent wages.

Consequently, a ‘martyrdom culture’ is present in many nonprofits which “encourages people to sacrifice their own wellbeing because of the critical importance of the work” (Avula et al., 2019, p. 15). Dr. Steve Burghardt, a macro social work scholar coined this strategy that starving nonprofits adopt in coping with resource and service stresses “Agency Social Darwinism,” where nonprofit employers intentionally identify workers who can “go the extra mile” and equate “a good worker” with those who can “stay later, worker harder” (p. 39). In many agencies, “‘survival of the fittest’ applies to those who agree that to sacrifice their work-life balance for the greater good is worth it” (p. 40). The sacrificing ideology of many caring professions also contributes to the issue—as argued by Carreon (2024) and Burghardt (2020), the social work profession has a culture that expects workers to work for free. In fact, expecting social workers to do pro bono, non-compensated work as part of their service is explicitly stated in the National Association of Social Workers’ Code of Ethics (NASW Code of Ethics, 2021). All these factors would impact nonprofit workers’ motivation, opportunities, and outcomes of labor organizing. This study aims to explore how their unionization unfolds in this complex context.

Method

To answer the research questions, an in-depth qualitative case study of nonprofit organizations in the New York City area was conducted. The interviews’ inclusion criteria required that each nonprofit organization was either unionized in the past 10 years or was in the process of unionizing without a union contract in place at the time of the study.

Purposive, maximum variation, and snowball sampling approaches were adopted to achieve a theoretically representative sample—we intentionally tried to maximize the range of service areas that the nonprofits were in and the types of unions that unionized them. To identify organizations for recruitment, we first conducted internet searches for unionized/unionizing nonprofit organizations in the news and for names of organizations published on union websites (note that not all unions publish member names), resulting in 18 organizations. We then searched each organization's website for employee bios and contact information and emailed recruitment material to all identifiable workers with non-management titles (note that many organizations do not publish staff's contact information). Most interviewees were identified this way. The second method involved sending recruitment information to various email lists, including a professional email list of ∼8,000 social workers and an email list of a group of workers active in the U.S. labor movement. Finally, we asked all interviewees and colleagues in our networks to spread the news of the study and had prospective participants contact us via their personal phone/email. We focus on small-to-mid-sized nonprofit organizations defined by having a budget size equal to or lower than 30 million dollars because this is the sample we obtained through the recruitment efforts. About 24 people expressed interest in participation, but some were too busy to commit to a specific time—after three follow-ups with prospective interviewees, we stopped contacting them.

Eventually, we interviewed 19 nonprofit labor organizers, including 1) 14 nonprofit workers from eight direct-service nonprofits—we call these nonprofit workers “union organizers” because the active roles that they played in unionizing their respective organization; these roles include member of their organization's organizing and/or bargaining committees, union steward, and active participant of their agency's union activities); 2) five professional union organizers/negotiators from five unions; and 3) two independent labor organizers who self-identified as social workers with nonprofit work experience. The service areas of the eight unionized/unionizing nonprofits include education (science education and special education), anti-violence, gender and sexuality, disability services, mental health, environmental protection, and housing services. Most of the eight agencies’ workers started this recent unionization within the past four years with a few having past unionization attempts a while ago. At the time of the interview, five of the eight nonprofit agencies successfully unionized with a certified contract, and three were still in the bargaining stage as their unions had been recognized by management. The five unions included had been trying to unionize nonprofit organizations in the NYC area and vary in size. Each union worked with many nonprofits nationwide, ranging from 60 to over a hundred. Out of the 19 interviewees, 15 identified as female, three as male, and one as a transgender woman; 12 identified as white, three as Latine, two as Black, and two as mixed race. Specifically, four out of the five professional union workers (i.e., employees of unions) identified as white; seven nonprofit workers as white and the other seven as people of color (note that we group the two independent social worker organizers into this category because they used to work at nonprofit agencies). The demographic characteristics of the sample were roughly consistent with the workforce profile of the nonprofit human services workforce in NYC: a female-majority workforce with a higher proportion (about 50%) of workers of color compared to the national average (Zhao & Zhang, 2024). To protect the identities of interviewed organizations and union organizers, a list of interviewees with their characteristics is not presented and we use the pronouns “they/them” to denote all individual interviewees.

All interviews were conducted between October 2022 and November 2023 with most interviews occurring in the fall of 2023. We used a semi-structured interview guide that included questions about interviewee's demographic information, work experience, and basic characteristics of their organization/union (e.g., budget, revenue mix, size of workforce, service area, percent worker unionized for nonprofit interviewees; and unionizing focus and history for union interviewees). Interviewees' unionizing experience was also explored: factors that motivated unionizing, organizing/bargaining experiences, bargaining items, outcomes of unionization (if applicable), and opinions on the efficacy of unions in nonprofits. All interviews were conducted one-on-one by the study's first author in a passcode-protected Zoom meeting room, and each interview lasted between 60 and 120 min. The average interview time was 70 min and analytical memos were written immediately after each interview. Saturation (the point at which no new themes emerged during data collection) was reached at the 16^th interview, but we continued to finish all scheduled interviews. With participants’ consent, 18 out of 19 interviewees agreed to audio recording, and an AI-based software, Otter.ai, automatically transcribed all recordings, which the interviewer then checked for fidelity.

We used Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis tool, to code and analyze interview transcripts and memos. The thematic coding approach, defined as a “method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 79), was adopted to identify major themes of the findings. The first rounds of open coding generated 71 codes, which were grouped into 10 code groups. Both inductive codes (codes that emerged from the data such as “management gains from unionization-reduced turnover”) and deductive codes (codes suggested by the literature and the research question, such as “pay issues-low pay” or “pay issues-stagnant wages”) were generated. Major themes that emerged from the two rounds of coding include unionization motivators (e.g., pay issues, working condition issues, organizing for clients/mission, organizing to have power/a voice in decision-making), workers’ wins, organizational/management gains, and worker counterarguments to anti-union rhetoric.

Findings

Our interviewees reported a surge in unionization in the U.S. nonprofit sector, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. They also reported similar factors motivating workers to organize, similar wins from unionization, and common counterarguments to anti-union rhetoric.

What Motivates Nonprofit Worker Union Organizing

Consistent with the literature on common issues that motivate human services workers to unionize (North, 2018; Shaffer, 1979; Zelnick et al., 2022), our interviewees reported “job improvement issues” and “service improvement issues” as primary reasons for forming a union. As such, they organized for better compensation, more desirable working conditions, and better quality of services for their clients. Addressing the injustice of how they were treated as workers and making the job sustainable were cited by all interviewed nonprofit workers as reasons for their recent unionization.

Pay, Benefits, Working Conditions, and Equity Issues

Across the board, interviewed nonprofit workers and union workers reported serious issues regarding compensation, working conditions, and equity. Workers felt that they were extremely undervalued and under-compensated. Across the board, interviewees reported chronic low pay, stagnant wages, no or limited cost of living adjustment (COLA), lack of a standardized pay scale that explains how levels of pay were determined, no compensation for extra work (such as overtime work, training new employees) or skills (such as using a secondary language at work), and disparities in pay. This was in part due to the lack of transparency and concrete policies that guide compensation decisions. Additionally, a lack of health insurance and retirement benefits were prevalent. For example, in a mid-sized organization serving victims of domestic violence, starting salary in 2015 for a full-time employee with a bachelor's degree was about $45,000; in another mid-sized organization, a black, female social worker with a master's degree was paid $42,000. In comparison, the mean salary in 2015 for a bachelor's degree holder in the US was over $65,000 (US Census Bureau, 2022). Low starting salaries were compounded by a lack of wage growth and/or COLA. As one female nonprofit worker said: “We had been told for years that we weren't getting promoted, compensated for our promotions because there wasn't enough money.” In an organization with a 30-million budget, a female, frontline employee was paid $20 per hour for over 20 years without any increases. Moreover, it took five years for the aforementioned black social worker's salary to be increased to $50,000.

Lacking clear policies and procedures for wage growth was also a common issue. In a small-sized organization that adopted discretionary bonuses, “wage growth was not standardized—whatever your manager thought you should get at your performance review every year is what you got.” This leaves room for gender-and-race based biases and discrimination, resulting in pay equity issues for workers doing the same work. In this organization, a few female workers were promoted without pay raises and they accidentally learned that their male peers’ salaries were higher. This enraged them and stimulated their unionization. This situation was not unique—all interviewed nonprofit workers reported issues with the lack of transparency in deciding pay. In one organization, a supervisor who trained new hires was paid less than a new hire simply because the new hire negotiated a higher salary. NYC's 2023 wage transparency law now requires employers to disclose the salary range for all job postings, which led many workers in one organization to discover that they “were paid below market wages”. About half of interviewed nonprofit workers were unhappy about the stark executive-worker pay disparity (note that the executive leadership was usually white-dominated while the workers were made up of white women and women of color). In one organization, while the lowest-paid full-time employees received a salary of $35,000, every executive team member was paid $200k to $300k and the size of the executive team kept expanding. This ongoing expansion of a much-higher-paid executive team also happened in the organization that paid an employee $20 per hour for over 20 years.

Additionally, nonprofit workers and union interviewees reported substandard, inflexible, and sometimes dangerous working conditions. Nearly all nonprofit workers interviewed reported high staff turnover resulting from low pay, high workloads, and unsafe work environments. In a victim-assisting agency, workers were frustrated that “they were being stretched way too thin and could not give 50 clients their proper attention,” while working overtime without compensation was a norm. The interviewee who once worked for this organization described how serious the turnover was: “I had two co-workers that left in less than a year. I would say that, on average, you were considered a veteran and knowledgeable if you had been there over a year.” In another agency with multiple sites, “about a third of case managers were missing” in one site and “about 50% of the positions were vacant” in another. “Unsustainable” workloads and high staff turnover were a top reason for unionization. Moreover, because human services often require workers to work at the frontline—schools, residential neighborhoods, clients’ homes, and even driving trucks (in a food recycling program)— multiple interviewees reported unsafe, dangerous working conditions and lack of remote/flexible work options as major issues that they would like to address with a union.

Most nonprofit worker interviewees reported a lack of basic organizational infrastructure to address these issues. For example, a few organizations never had a Human Resource person; neither of the nonprofit organizations in mid-union status had concrete pay, wage growth, or promotion policies before workers started unionizing, which left room for gender-and-race based workplace bullying, discrimination, and biases. Desiring a more transparent organization where workers had a voice in decision-making was listed as a major reason for unionization for all interviewees. Lastly, a few interviewees identified the sexism, racism, and lack of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in their organizations, especially in management, as a source of frustration for workers.

Organizing for Clients and the Community

In addition to job-related factors, a commitment to quality services for the community was another major reason motivating this wave of nonprofit worker unionization. Workers believed that services and missions were compromised because of the low pay and substandard working conditions that led to a financially struggling, overextended, and unstable workforce. A worker of an education agency said: “We must be able to afford eggs. We must be able to afford rent. We must be able to take breaks. You need us to be healthy to support our communities.” Another worker whose agency serves domestic violence survivors stated: “Working with survivors, you don't want to have different people come every single year or month. It's not good for clients to experience high worker turnover; it really is a survivor justice issue for us to get equitable pay.” In fact, in a field where staff turnover was so prevalent, the workers who chose to stay and unionize were the most committed. As one worker of a domestic violence agency described: “We unionize because we care so much about our work and clients. To unionize, it's a lot of time, and it's a lot of work outside of work and at work—to be so present with people, instead of just doing your job and going home.” For workers who were highly invested in the mission, unionization to push for livable compensation was the only way that they could continue to do the work. As a worker who works at an environmental protection agency said:

I love this job. I just want to be able to do it and exist. I think a lot of people feel the same way—we want to be able to have this job and sustain our living on this job because we care about it. But if I'm getting paid barely any money, and I have no health insurance benefits, then I have no choice but to leave eventually.

Explicitly Addressing “Idealism Exploitation”

All interviewees held that the primary reason behind this wave of unionization was that workers felt that they had been “exploited” by their organizations because of their idealism. A professional union organizer who worked with many nonprofit workers summarized: “These are folks who choose to go into human services not because they expect that they're going to get rich. No one.” A worker of an education nonprofit explicitly identified the sacrificing ideology in which fulfilling an organizational mission comes at the expense of workers:

I call it “nonprofit martyrdom”. People who come to work at a nonprofit, people who work from passion are particularly vulnerable to being exploited. The way that manifests [in nonprofits] is people are expected to push themselves beyond what they should be pushing themselves, because of the mission.

Another worker from a different education agency debunked the “family” and “you do it because you love it” narratives that some nonprofits used to justify the exploitative nature of their practices:

Nonprofits exploit our idealism. They say things like, we're a family, and we do this because we care about what we do. Well, that's all good, but one: We aren't a family. You don't pay for my milk and eggs. I don't care what you watch on TV at night. And regardless of how much we care about our work, it is work, and we should be compensated commensurate with the work that we do.

Our interviews reveal an awakening of nonprofit workers’ rights awareness. They were clear about the injustice in their organization's practices. As a union organizer who had unionized multiple nonprofits summarized: “At a certain point, the workers see the hypocrisy—the management is like, we're all about supporting people; we're about making the world a better place. And, yet you're treating us not well at all.”

Outcomes and Gains from Unionization

Worker Wins

First, for workers with a union contract in place, significant salary increases, built-in raises, overtime pay, increased paid time off, improved pay equity, better health and retirement benefits, and clearer policies around compensation and promotion decisions were across-the-board wins that they obtained with union bargaining. Specifically, in one agency, “the floor salary for any full-time role was increased by 6K”; in another agency, “everybody got at least a 7K raise;” and in a third agency, the lowest salary for a full-time employee increased from 48K to 55K. In an organization where workers were still bargaining for their first contract, management gave all staff a 15% increase in their salaries as soon as workers started organizing. In all unionized agencies, a standardized pay scale was created and built-in COLA or pay raises were established—from 2% to 5.5% annually.

Paid time off and flexibility in when and where the work gets done were other major issues for negotiation—especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, many workers preferred remote or hybrid work options. Across the board, workers had clear remote/hybrid work policies built into their contracts. In one agency, workers could discuss a unique work schedule that fits their life—8am to 4pm or 8:30am-4:30pm, for example. Workers from several agencies were also able to reduce work hours per week and/or work weeks per year. In one agency, weekly work hours were reduced from 35 to 32 so workers could take a half day off per week. In another agency, workers successfully bargained for a 5-week paid time off per year. In a third agency, workers negotiated a one-month remote-work time, which means that for one month in a year, workers could choose to work remotely from another place for whatever purposes. Better health or retirement benefits were reported, although less common than pay increases. One agency started offering retirement benefits; another improved their health insurance plans, including a transgender health care package. Workers of two agencies won language bonuses—meaning that workers who used a secondary language at work received additional compensation for those additional skills contributing to work. Specifically, in an education agency, employees who were required to regularly perform bilingual job duties had a one-time $2,500 premium added to their minimum salary.

Compared to pay, benefits, and flexible work options, workers did not make much progress securing a caseload cap—another common bargaining item. Employers hesitated to negotiate on this. Establishing a DEI agenda was also hard—although a few interviewed nonprofit workers reported having a nondiscrimination clause in their union contracts.

Organization and Management Gains

Interviewees also described how unionization had benefited management and the organization. For example, improved compensation and working conditions resulted in less staff turnover and higher work morale—multiple workers said they thought about leaving the agency multiple times before the unionization but decided to stick around with the improved conditions. A worker of an education agency described how unionization impacted their situation: “It's changed my life so much. It made it possible for me. I liked my job here, I wanted to stay, but I couldn't continue living like this.” A worker who served as a union steward in a disability organization reported fewer grievances from workers since the first union contract was put into place and they also noticed significantly lower turnover. At another education organization, a worker observed: “There were people who have stuck around longer than they wanted to because there's a union and they felt heard in ways that they weren't feeling before.”

Moreover, unionization strengthened organizations with concrete, clear policies so they bore fewer operational risks. As one worker in a young education organization summarized: “I think it was very good for management that this happened. It forced them to write down and formalize a lot of things that were just understood in the organization. It also forced them to cement some practices and discard other practices”. In facing worker unionization, another agency replaced its anti-union white CEO with a pro-union woman of color CEO, who significantly improved the management-worker relationship.

Improved benefits and working conditions also benefited managers who were not protected by union contracts. As a worker of an education agency explained: “Increased holidays, paid time off, remote work schedules, parental leave, retirement, these policies are across the board. There are very few things that the workers get don't apply to them. It's like the boat metaphor: a rising tide lifts all boats.” In a mid-sized mental health organization, given the rise in unionized workers’ salaries, salaries of the lowest-paid management staff (who were often women of color) were also increased so they would not get paid less than their supervisees.

Disputing Management Views of Unions

Literature suggests an anti-union stance in nonprofit management in the U.S. Managers often argue that “nonprofits do not control the money” and “unionization would hurt mission and clients” as common arguments against unions in nonprofit organizations (Capulong, 2006; Peters & Masaoka, 2000; Zelnick et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2024b). All interviewees disputed these arguments for various reasons. First, workers and union organizers stated that unionization was not only about money—as a worker of an education agency said: “People just wanted to get a seat at the table so they can have decision-making power.” One of the union organizers who had spent their career unionizing nonprofits summarized: “People get frustrated, and they feel that their place could be managed better if the workers had a more structured voice in how things unfolded in the workplace”. Second, working conditions (e.g., job security, flexible work schedule) and worker rights issues do not necessarily cost money. As one professional union organizer explained: “Workers don't think it's realistic for them to make $160,000 a year. That's why so many other aspects of work become so much more important to them in terms of basically respecting us, listening to us, and don't treat us like disposable labor.” A worker from an environmental protection nonprofit substantiated this point with their own experience:

Every workplace, whether it's a corporation or the most social justice nonprofit in the world, workers are just not going to be listened to unless they have a legally recognized thing that forces the employer to engage with them. I could point to examples at my organization: we've complained a million times about faulty equipment, and this is dangerous and blah, blah, blah, [but nothing was done] …Without a union, they can just do that stuff all the time.

Third, regarding the argument that nonprofits “don’t have the money to pay higher wages,” workers believed that 1) even though the budget was limited, there was always a better way to divide the existing pie so it is fairer—for example, managers could pay themselves less but pay workers more; 2) “they can control the prices”—it was the management's job to expand the size of the pie. A worker of an education agency said: “We deserve fair compensation. I don't care how you get it. That's on you. That's what you're paid for. Your director of development better be good.” Another worker from a crime victim assistance agency said: “You need to fight for your people, try your best, do a better job.” Furthermore, workers thought that they were paid low wages because management had the option to do so—workers did not have a say in decision-making or the power to make the employer pay fairly. They believed that “it is doable when organizations don’t have a choice to pay low wages” and unionization is their way to make employers have no choice but pay fairer wages. They cited the evidence of their wins through unionization to prove this point and they held that nonprofit management could use worker unionization as a leverage in fundraising and/or government contract negotiations.

In fact, at an education agency, after workers formed a union and won a significant contract, the management now used worker unionization as a fundraising pitch: “Not only do we do these programs, but we also prioritize the wellbeing of the people who work here.” The interviewed worker from this organization believed it was key to shift the funder's mindset, helping them realize that the well-being of the people who deliver the mission was also important. This person shared their opinion on how urgent it is to address the problem: “It's unsustainable. There is no mission without the people. We can't actually accomplish the mission by putting the mission at odds with the people who are carrying it out each and every day. It's just not going to work out that way.” Through unionization, nonprofit workers are sending this message to their employers, funders, and the society.

Conclusion and Discussion

Through in-depth interviews with nonprofit union organizers in NYC, this qualitative study examines the causes, outcomes, and workers’ perceptions of unions of the recent nonprofit worker unionization movement in the United States. It is an attempt to fill the gap in the literature which primarily presents management's views and perceptions of unions. According to interviewed nonprofit workers and professional union organizers, chronic low and unfair pay, substandard working conditions, and a concern for compromised services to clients and the community were the impetus for nonprofit workers’ labor organizing. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic, which exacerbated human services working conditions and increased costs of living, fueled this wave of nonprofit worker unionization. Interviews reveal that existing unionization efforts yielded significant wins for workers. Specifically, in the face of union pressure, most unionized agencies significantly increased salaries and salary transparency as well as provided non-monetary benefits such as improved health and retirement benefits, increased paid time off, and remote work options. Considering that the outcomes most benefited frontline, lower-paid staff that were predominantly women of color, this win has profound implications for gender, racial, and economic equality in the country. Moreover, it shows that it is possible for nonprofit organizations to figure out resources to reprioritize labor costs—at least in the short term. In other words, even in the triangular relationship with funders in the equation, it seems that managers still have some control over how organizational money is spent and there is room for prioritizing worker well-being. This challenges management's argument that unions cannot help to improve worker compensation, because the funder, as opposed to nonprofit organizations, control the prices (Capulong, 2006; Peters & Masaoka, 2000; Zhao et al., 2024b).

Because this study focuses on nonprofit workers who chose to unionize and their collaborative organizers from unions, unsurprisingly, all interviewees unanimously held positive views of what unions can do to nonprofit workers. It is important to note that the findings presented here are based on this specific sample and we cannot expect all nonprofit workers to share the same views. In fact, some interviewees mentioned that not all their co-workers were interested in unionization and/or believed in unions’ effectiveness. Interviewees also shared challenges in unionizing nonprofit organizations—but because the unionization process is not the focus of the current paper, here we are not presenting the data and findings in this regard.

The nonprofit unionization movement examined in the study is not unique to the U.S.—it has been seen in many industrial countries including Canada, Australia, and the UK. A common background across these countries is these governments’ pursuing of a neoliberal agenda which involves anti-unionism and an intent to push many relatively secure, higher-status and higher-wage welfare jobs in the public sector into the low paid realm of nonprofit work (Baines et al., 2014, p. 27; Capulong, 2006; Cooper & Ellem, 2008; Cunningham & James, 2010; Zhao et al., 2024b). What is different between U.S. nonprofit worker unionization and unionization efforts in other countries is that U.S. nonprofit unionization is at an embryonic stage in a more anti-union political and social environment. While workers are still arguing with management about unions’ relevance in the nonprofit sector in the U.S., the literature on unions in nonprofits and social services in these other countries tend to focus on current states and strategies adopted by the union movements (Baines, 2010; Baines et al., 2014; Cooper & Ellem, 2008; Cunningham & James, 2010).

Noteworthy, labor exploitation based on workers’ passion and intrinsic motivation is not unique to the nonprofit sector. In her book Work Won't Love You Back, labor and inequality author, Sarah Jaffe (2021), debunks the “labor-of-love” myth which is pervasive in the postindustrial nations. Jaffe argues that, from starving, devoted artists to overworked nurses, teachers, and home care workers, and even professional athletes, “doing what you love” is a direct recipe for exploitation—exploitation is defined by being paid less than the work's worth regardless of one finding the job fulfilling, enjoyable or not. As reviewed earlier, nonprofit human services are a typical example that utilizes the labor-of-love ideology and under pay workers. Nonprofit workers—of which the majority are women— are particularly vulnerable to labor exploitation because of their commitment to the public good and the devaluation of care work, which “is often assumed to be an extension of what women do naturally” (Baines et al., 2014, p. 27; Baines, 2010). Our interviews show that nonprofit workers involved in unionization clearly recognized the exploitative nature of their jobs and explicitly coined it as “idealism exploitation” from their employers.

Previous literature suggests that the labor donation norm and the sacrificing culture of nonprofit service organizations are a barrier to labor organizing. This assumes that workers’ mission commitment would weaken their bargaining power out of concern for disruption of services to clients and resulting hesitation to unionize and go on strikes. Our interviews with union organizers of this recent wave of labor organizing in the U.S., however, show that workers are reevaluating this logic and have begun to align workers’ rights with clients’ rights. Organizing workers realized that they needed to be able to live and exist so they could better carry out their mission. They explicitly communicated a workers’ rights mindset that demands fair treatment and a voice in organizational decision-making. They criticized the “you do it because you love it” logic and refused to be further taken advantage of simply because they cared and wanted to do good for society. This awakening of workers’ rights framework and its connection to clients’ rights have successfully transformed a former barrier to a powerful facilitator for labor organizing. Additionally, literature (as reviewed in Folbre et al., 2023) suggests that the limited cross-industry mobility of care jobs (meaning that it is harder for care workers to move to other industries or professions) weakens human services workers’ bargaining power. Our research shows that it could also serve as a facilitating factor in labor organizing—interviewees reported organizing for clients and commitment to the work being a motivator for unionization. Furthermore, as pointed out by Baines et al. (2014), the fact that care jobs cannot be offshored to the developing countries makes it harder for employers to replace unionizing workers—a common anti-union strategy used by employers facing worker unionization (Borjas, 2016). This constitutes another facilitating factor for nonprofit worker unionization.

Lastly, due to financial concerns that a union shop is more costly and managerial concerns that “unions are headaches” (Zhao et al., 2024b), previous research shows that few nonprofit managers welcomed worker unionization in their organizations (Capulong, 2006; Peters & Masaoka, 2000; Zhao et al., 2024b). Our interviews, however, reveal that unionization also benefited nonprofit management. This includes favorable work policies applying to managers and reduced staff turnover through improved pay and working conditions. Regardless, worker unionization has become an unstoppable movement in the sector. Interviewed professional union organizers reported being overwhelmed with requests from nonprofit workers across the country and one even had to set a threshold on the size of a union unit (i.e., 50 employees minimum) that they would choose to work with. Resultingly, nonprofit managers seem to have no choice but to prepare to run organizations with unions. This requires a new nonprofit management paradigm. First, nonprofit employers can no longer capitalize on workers’ intrinsic motivation and donated labor, instead, managers must put more effort into generating resources to pay higher wages through fundraising and contract negotiations. This may require a proactive effort to influence funders, shifting their mindset to accept that an adequate budget should be devoted to salaries, benefits, and improving working conditions. Second, nonprofits may adopt new staff and personnel management principles, transforming the “do more with less” culture to a new mindset that treats workers as important stakeholders and incorporates the organizational justice lens. Worker unionization indeed would make nonprofit management more challenging, but it is likely to be a reality for nonprofit managers to cope with. How they handle the issue has profound implications for the sector's future.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations, and we caution readers to only generalize the findings within a certain scope. First, the sample only includes small-to-mid-sized nonprofits with a relatively diverse revenue profile—service-providing agencies that mainly work as government contractors with revenue extremely dependent on government contracts were not included. This means that the studied nonprofits had relatively more flexibility in how they used their budgets, and that unionization was relatively easier for workers due to the smaller size of the agency. Research on how unionization would play out in large nonprofits primarily relying on government contracts is needed. Second, this study focuses on NYC, a relatively pro-union place. Future research should be conducted in other states and areas, especially those with more conservative political environments for unions. Third, this study was conducted at the beginning stage of the nonprofit worker unionization movement in the United States. Therefore, how the union contracts with significant worker wins will influence these organizations’ survival and development in the long run is to be observed. One concern is that unions might bankrupt nonprofits and drive struggling organizations out of business (Zhao et al., 2024b). More time is needed to see if this concern is valid and to see how nonprofits, funders, and society adjust the new reality of “higher labor costs” for mission-driven work and a workforce that is less willing to sacrifice their wellbeing for the sake of that mission. The managerial and practical complexities of managing a nonprofit union shop are also to be studied. Lastly, while we acknowledge that the study is based on a small sample, we would like to draw attention to the practical challenges in participant recruitment. It is a sensitive topic to study and nonprofit workers/organizers often had overwhelming work schedules juggling an already-over-extended work life and unionization work. Though passionate about the topic, many unionizing workers are simply too busy to participate in this kind of research. This study is an attempt to present workers’ voices, given management's one-sided arguments presented in the literature.